I took a deeper look at it. And although it is very powerful and versatile, I think it would be overkill in my case. But nether the less, I contacted Olivier and asked him, what his plans are and if he wants to see wsgd integrated into Wireshark.
For letting other people use it to integrate new protocols, I totally agree on that point. But for it being easy to use, it should definitely be supported by an UI. I will take a deeper look at the sourcecode and then try to figure out what (together with Olivier as part of wsgd or building something new) can be submitted as a patch. regards, Roland On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:43 PM, Roland Knall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok. But then the question comes up, if a UI interface should be part >> of Wireshark or part of wsgd. As a last resort wsgd could be ported to >> wireshark, but this is a shoe I would only put on me as a last step. > > wsgd is currently a plugin dissector for Wireshark, so I'm not sure what > "ported to Wireshark" would mean. > > I think it should, in some form, be incorporated into Wireshark, so as to, at > minimum, allow people to add support for new protocols to Wireshark without > having to write C or C++ code and run a compiler to build a plugin or a new > version of Wireshark with a new builtin dissector. > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> > Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
